Show THE LIBEKTSr OF TIlE PRESS The decision of the Supreme Court of Californiareversing the decision of the Superior Su-perior ourt which fined the editor of the San Jose Mercury a hundred dollars for contempt in publishing proceedings which the court ordered to be kept secret se-cret has been commented upon extensively exten-sively by the western press The universal univer-sal sentiment is that the Supreme Court has upheld the freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed by the Constitution and that the Superior court exceeded its powers and was manifestly in error Particulars of this case however have not been given with any detail outside of the state The San Jose Mercury has come to hand with a full account of it and tho complete text of the decisions and we condense from it the following which will doubtless prove interesting to our readers The decision of the Supreme Court of California was rendered on the 11th inst But the case originated last January when a divorce suit was tried belore Judge Lorigan with closed doors Price vs Price was the title of the suit the wife Barbara suing for divorce from the husband Elijah Price The court issued an rder > excluding all persons except officers of the court during the trial and further commanding that no report of the I testimony giv u be published He in Q f1 t f T p 11i r timated that if any such publication was made he would deal with the principals as he did not propose to exclude sand s-and allow the newspapers to publish the testimony The clerk was instructed to take note of all reporters who looked into the minutes of the court The Mercury came out with particulars of toe trial and the testimony The parties par-ties were about 75 years old The wife alleged al-leged unfaithfulness and other nasty conduct on the part of the husband but there was nothing reported which would have been considered out of the way were it not for the strict order of the court Charles M Shortridge the editor and publisher of the San Jose Mercury by order of Judge Lorigan was cited to appear ap-pear in court to answer for contempt The defendant appeared and by his attorneys at-torneys made an elaborate answers to the effect that he was not a party ncr witness in the action of Price vs Price That he was not in the court when the order of secresy was issued nor had it been served on him That published a true and fair report of the testimony and that it was not made in the presence of the court and did not interfere with the proceedings pro-ceedings or reflect upon the character charac-ter of the court or cast any discredit dis-credit upon the court And that he had a constitutional right and privilege of such publication which no court by any valid decree could deprive him of A demurrer de-murrer was entered to the jurisdiction of the court to make or enforce any order forbidding such publication as had been printed The case was ably argued on both sides and counsel for the defense besides standing up for the freedom of the press argued that the court might as well hold people in contempt who talked of the case and the witnesses who out of court might repeat the testimony they gave in court But the defendant was fined 103 and at once took an appeal In the supreme court eloquent and lengthy arguments were made which we have not space to introduce The scope and the limitations of the liberty of the press were dilated upon with clearness and force The Supreme court upheld the law of the state which prohibits the publication of all the proceedings in divorce cases when testimony of a filthy character is introduced and gives power to courts to prevent the spread of immoral influences of that character but did not consider con-sider that such provisions were intended in-tended to prevent the publication of legitimate news nor such publicity to the proceedings of public tribunals as inconsistent in-consistent with truth and decency The authority given by statute to courts to hold trials in certain cases with closed doors was to protect witnesses of refined sensibilities from giving testimony testi-mony of a delicate nature in the presence of vulgar or curious spectators and to prevent the circulation of obscene and prurient particulars But this did not extend to preventing the discussion and publication of court proceedings with duo regard to decency and morality The inherent power in courts to punish for contempt committed in their presence or out of their presence when it tends to embarrass impede or obstruct the court vas dwelt upon and upheld as necessary to maintain their dignity indeed their very existence And it was stated that though this is arbitrary yet it is only to be used as an auxiliary means to attain the ends of justice The constitution of of every state in the Union guarantees to every citizen the right to freely speak write and publish his sentiments on all subjects and prohibits pro-hibits the passage of any law To restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press The rights thus preserved by the constitution are dear to time heart of every American and their exercise can be complained com-plained of by courts in summary proceedings pro-ceedings only when the publication or speech interferes with the proper performance per-formance of judicial duty If there has been no such interference there has been no contempt With the moral aspect of the case the court said it had nothing to do Courts are not conservators of public morals Rules affecting the morals of the community com-munity must proceed from the legislative department The court found nothing in the publication which interfered with the full and free investigation of the case on trial The court said further The liberty of the press stops where its further exercise exer-cise would invade the rights of others The provision of tho constitution does not authorize the usurpation of tho function I func-tion of courts Under the plea oi the liberty lib-erty of the press a newspaper has no right to assail litigants during the progress of a trial intimidate witnesses dictate verdicts ver-dicts or judgments or spread before juries I its opinion of the merits of cases which I are on trial As stated before what maybe may-be spoken may be written and the converse con-verse of the proposition is true that what may not bo spoken under such circumstances circum-stances may not be written As the article arti-cle in question does not go beyond these limitations and as the section under which the court below proceeded to judgment judg-ment clearly does not authorize the order which was made the proceedings must be annulled This decision is of great value to the press of the country It not only treats of the scope and limits of the press but also of courts in their treatment of the press The rule What may be spoken may be written and published is broad enough to cover the whole ground of the question and is eminently satisfactory to the newsrHpers of the United States The Supreme Court of California in this decision has maintained the high reputation reputa-tion which the judiciary of that state have acquired Tho California reports are hold in great esteem by the bench and the bar and this ruling will rank with the very important opinions which are on record We congratulate the editor of the Mercury on the great victory ho has achieved for himself and the newspaper fraternity |